I love frameworks that divide behavior & personality into categories because of how they help us transcend the idea that there is a right or wrong way to be. 1/
-
Show this thread
-
They don’t do so by saying that “it’s wrong to believe there is a right or wrong way to be.” That would be a performative contradiction. 2/
1 reply 1 retweet 1 likeShow this thread -
Instead they add dimensionality to the question. A personality type framework asks, “Right or wrong for whom?” A developmental framework asks, “Right or wrong for what stage of one’s life?” 3/
1 reply 2 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
“Add dimensionality” is a mathy way of saying “add more context”. Rabkin's Dictum: If you don't understand something, it's because you aren't aware of its context. 4/
1 reply 3 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
As a student of computing science, I am endlessly fascinated by the idea that we overcome binary thinking by adding more digits. 5/
3 replies 4 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
It reminds me that when I disagree with someone, we can resolve that disagreement not by forcing one of us to change a belief, but by finding a new dimension of context. 6/
1 reply 5 retweets 27 likesShow this thread -
One way to add dimensionality is to shift one's attention. Going from narrow focus to broad awareness, or vice versa, brings different features of the current situation into view. What we are looking at changes when the way we look at it changes. 7/
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
We can try combining two seemingly opposed points of view as different projections from the same higher-dimensional reality. Does history proceed in cycles, or linearly? It can do both, as a helix. 8/pic.twitter.com/Skuv2Nqwau
1 reply 1 retweet 11 likesShow this thread -
Lawrus Retweeted John Nerst
A great take on these topics from
@everytstudies:https://twitter.com/everytstudies/status/1108008129332166656?s=21 …Lawrus added,
John Nerst @everytstudiesWe form mental models of reality through abstraction and generalization that are much, much smaller (in terms of bits of info) than reality itself. That means lossy compression, and that means choices about what aspects of the territory we choose to represent in high fidelity ->Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Lawrus Retweeted James Tiberius Stone
Talking about “binary vs systems thinking” is another route in:https://twitter.com/evolving_ego/status/1149059921297600512?s=21 …
Lawrus added,
James Tiberius Stone @Evolving_EgoBinary thinking: is centralization good or bad? Systems thinking: When is centralization better? When is decentralization better? Binary thinking: is government action better, or are markets better? Systems thinking: what does the market do well, and what does gov't do well?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread
Embodied example: Learning to snowboard. First a simple binary: heelside & toeside turns. As you get more comfortable, you perceive more about the effect of leaning more or less into a turn: the binary becomes a range. And: how far forward or back is your mass? Another dimension.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
